A Fitting Climatic Ending – Princess Cut Review

If you’ve followed the last few posts, you know I’m determining which director is better: Paul and Sheilah Munger. The husband and wife team launched the Princess Cut franchise. They’ve kept it going without superheroes involved.

Last week I reviewed their film’s openings. I shared how giving the audience an immediate pay-off makes them feel good about their ticket buy. This week I’ll talk about the key elements that make for a great climax—and the answer isn’t explosions and bullets.

Several vital things must happen for a movie climax to be worth the ticket price. To pull it off, directors must focus on the below items.

Define the Climax

A movie is an argument, and the director must define his position in the argument. The director’s position defines the parameters of the climax. The more personal and riskier the argument, the more is at stake and the larger the climax’s pay-off.

In Back to the Future, Marty’s life gets jeopardized when he goes back in time. He inadvertently stops his parents from connecting. Marty overcomes many obstacles to get his parents to connect, so he’s not erased from time. He must then return to the future to live his life.

To get back in time, Marty has to overcome major obstacles and perfect timing to succeed. The climax hits as he transports back to the future.

Transform the Protagonist

A great climax shows the protagonist using their weakness to overcome obstacles and win their internal battle. This journey and character arch are about transforming the protagonist’s flaw into a strength. Once the protagonist has changed, he can execute the necessary steps in the pivotal moment to succeed.

The transformation of the character is critical to the success of the climax. This is possible when the director introduces the protagonist’s goal at the film’s beginning. The director follows with a demonstration of the protagonist’s flaw or weakness.

At the beginning of Act II, the director highlights the new skills, information, and allies the protagonist needs later in the journey. These elements make it clear that the protagonist cannot take on the antagonist. The antagonist’s strengths reveal the protagonist’s weaknesses.

This forces the protagonist into a corner with a lack of ability to battle the antagonist. Most films have the character lose a battle against a proxy antagonist to raise the risk leading to the climax. At this point, the protagonist faces a dark night of the soul with the realization that he isn’t enough.

But as we all do in a time of crisis, the protagonist considers his goal in light of his new skills, information, and allies. He regroups and heads into battle, knowing he will give his all.

In most romantic dramas, the protagonist has to overcome their misbelief before the climax. The simpler the lessons of the journey, the more likely audiences will try the protagonist’s final choices in their life. The protagonist must change to fulfill the character arch and produce the moment that allows them to win the climax.

Support the Climax

If the protagonist’s goal is unclear to the audience at the film’s beginning, the climax will be a dud. If the character doesn’t face the antagonist with their exposed weakness, the climax won’t work. The character arch must be clear and culminate in a changed person to take the win during the climax.

All the 32 story beats a director crafts into their film must lead to a single pivotal moment. The climax weakens with every missing or misdirected beat. A director with 7 or 16 beats has a more challenging time creating a memorable climactic ending.

The director’s job is all about supporting the story and its big finish. If at any time he directs a scene without understanding how it adds to the story, he weakens the ending. When a director ensures most story elements lead to the climax, audiences will watch the story many times.

Paul vs. Sheilah’s Princess Cut Endings

Paul in PC1 establishes that the protagonist wants to get married. Her dad wants her to learn about real love, not infatuation. As the story progresses, the protagonist sees both types of love in action.

The protagonist had to sort through the actions of others, her thoughts, and her feelings. By the climax, she chooses to trust the man she loved despite the circumstances. He, after taking care of the things that could hinder their relationship, shows up with her father’s blessing and proposes.

The climax works because we understand her goal to get married, starting with her first scene. While some scenes didn’t feed this trajectory, many scenes empowered the climax of the film. Overall, Paul had a winning climax.

Paul’s Princess Cut 2

Due to the length of this post, I won’t mention the PC2 climax except for one thing. Paul’s ensemble choice distracted the audience from the throughline, weakening the climax. Paul can learn about focusing on an ensemble by watching how the Avengers films tie to a single character’s throughline.

When a director loses track of balancing the story and keeping the focus headed to the climax, the editor usually brings him back to reality. Unfortunately, Paul’s editor was biased and fully supported his first cut. Why? Well, Paul was the editor. It’s too bad independent budgets make this the rule more times than not.

Sheilah’s Princess Cut 3

Sheilah stirs the audience by having the protagonist toss her boyfriend out after an issue that puts her child at risk. This leads to her facing a dark night of her soul, forcing the audience to wonder if they’ll ever overcome their circumstances. It was perfectly set up to watch the protagonist fight for her love through to the climax, but it didn’t play out that way.

Instead of fighting for her love, the protagonist had to overcome more obstacles put in front of her. This continued until her boyfriend attempted to intervene and ended up in the hospital. The climax soon follows with less emotional enthusiasm than expected.

This weaker climax was due to two things. First, the protagonist wasn’t driving the plot in a proactive battle for love leading up to the climax—a common mistake for first-time directors. Second, too many subplots were intercut at a time when a story should focus solely on the primary characters—I’ll blame the editor for that one.

The good news is that the audience did see the protagonist transform. They watched her shift from distrusting all to trusting the good in life. This opened her to a new world of love she had thought was beyond her grasp—a very satisfying ending for a romance film.

The Winner Is…

Sheilah did an excellent job with her first feature film. She opened with a strong focus on the protagonist. Unfortunately, she didn’t use that strength to drive the plot to the climax. But she did show the character’s transformation, which most first-time filmmakers miss.

This film launched her as a serious director with room to grow and master the craft.

Paul’s first film established the protagonist’s goal of getting married. He took the audience on the character’s journey to learn what true love looks like for a solid marriage. While he allowed too many story elements to happen to her, he did have the protagonist drive several scenes by her choices. This led to a good climax that satisfied the audience.

When comparing Paul and Sheilah’s features, I found that they have different strengths. They can learn from each other’s strengths. Sheilah has an innate sense of character focus, while Paul focuses on the goal of the thesis. Great films need both.

The best director between them will be the one who chooses to learn from the other. It’s too soon to make that call, so I’ll remind everyone that the protagonist must go through a transformation. And, they must also make choices that drive the story forward toward the climax.

Anything less will make the film unbearable for viewers.

Directors must find a balance between the action plotline and the B-plotline. The action plotline drives the story toward the climax. Th B-plotline transforms the protagonist’s character.

Congratulations to Paul and Sheilah for creating features that built a franchise. Also, thanks for sharing your love for each other through your true-love stories. Couples today need that role model in their entertainment.

Copyright © 2022 by CJ Powers

Fake News and Faith-Based “Gavin Stone”—Review

gavinstoneThe Resurrection of Gavin Stone was released this past weekend with a great deal of grassroots fanfare. I was bombarded by people telling me that the film was “HILARIOUS” and that I needed to support it because the “Christian film genre needs help.” I was skeptical about the film being that funny, but I trusted my sources and watched it.

When the theater lights came up after the end credits, I realized that all the social media entries about the “HILARIOUS” film were all fake news. My friends were duped, or they’ve learned how to lie for the sake of a good cause. Nah, they were duped.

It seems that the more a person watches campy films to support a cause, the more the bar of their artistic scale lowers. They loose track of what is great cinema and what should’ve been relegated to a TV Movie of the Week (MOW) on a small cable network.

But I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. I’ll suppose they hadn’t watched La La Land or Hidden Figures yet, which would have shifted their skewed perspective back to a healthy norm. And, they probably hadn’t recently watched videos of The Blind Side, Gravity or Les Misérables.

Then again, maybe they’re stuck on squishy Hallmark movies, where in the first three minutes of the film you know exactly where the plot is headed—comfortably taking away any unwanted surprises. The Resurrection of Gavin Stone did that very thing, lifting its tired plots directly from Hallmark Christmas and Winterfest movies.

I don’t slight director Dallas Jenkins for using a Hallmark format for a campy story in the least, but I do find it interesting that he was quoted as saying his desire was that the movie “drives people to church on Sunday morning,” when the film was clearly made for the proverbial choir.

The film was loaded with Christian jargon that wasn’t understood by the general public, making it impossible to create any desire in a non-believer to attend church. The “inside jokes” also made it difficult for the audience to feel compelled to join the click, rather than being repulsed by it. That’s not to say Jenkins didn’t have the right to make a film for the choir, but to say he hopes it reaches unbelievers sounds like the perfect set up for fake news.

When a film’s language is campy Christian, gritty secular crowds won’t get it. Most won’t even buy the ticket. In fact, the moment Christians hear that the film is yet another faith-based campy story that belongs on a small cable network, box office sales will dry up. But, it won’t really matter, as Jenkins got his two weeks in theaters to increase video sales.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering, the film was a flop at the box office. Opening weekend saw less than $2,500 per screen average; a number that once a normal film drops to is clearly on its way out.

But the film isn’t all bad. The good news is that the choir will laugh hardily when watching this comedy that doesn’t take itself too seriously. In fact, the choir might finally be able to poke fun at themselves after watching this film that takes the starch out of the up-tight ministry leader. Jenkins did a great job at getting the proverbial choir to look at themselves from an outsider’s viewpoint.

There were even several great moments of acting aside from the purposeful cheeky scenes filled with self-deprecating choir humor and campy fun. Had the title been better suited toward comedy and the film shot as a television special, I’m convinced it would’ve had much higher viewership.

The timing of the film might have added to the film’s death, since many in the choir are still trying to see award winning films like La La Land and Hidden Figures – Both are must sees in my book.

So let me be clear … stating that the film is “HILARIOUS” is fake news. Saying that the film will “delight members of the choir and their friends” is truth. Saying that the film is “original” is fake news. Saying that the film is heartwarming is truth. Are you getting the picture?

My recommendation, go see La La Land and Hidden Figures first.

Copyright 2017 by CJ Powers

Star Trek vs. Faith-Based Canon

barco-escape-star-trek-beyond-2

Star Trek is one of the most revered science fiction franchises that hold tightly to its canon. The 13 motion pictures and 6 television series all follow the production bibles that have painstakingly been kept corruption free for 50 years. Even the independent fan films have focused on excruciating details to honor the canon.

A recent copyright infringement suit sped its first part of judgment thanks to the accuracy of the canon and the many production companies that continued adhering to the rules of the franchise world without exception. Many Star Trek bible elements have been released and highly supported by the fans, forcing production companies to scrutinize every aspect of their production in order to stay true to its canon.

But in the faith-based films that include stories based on the Bible, a canon of 66 books, few production companies adhere to it. The Young Messiah was released last March and was touted as one of the best faith-based films of 2016, but it broke canon with little repercussions.

The film is a story about Jesus at age seven and his family’s departure from Egypt to return back to Nazareth. This fresh childhood perspective gave audiences an explorative glimpse into how their future Savior grew into his religious identity.

Breaking canon in the name of “creative license” is something that Star Trek storytellers would never do. But, the makers of The Young Messiah had no problems stepping away from canon. According to the book of John, one of the 66 books within the Christian canon, Jesus performed his first “sign” or miracle at the wedding in Cana of Galilee. But, in the film, which takes place years earlier, he brought a dead bird back to life, healed his sick uncle and restored sight to a Rabbi.

While the director intended these signs to reveal the humanity of Jesus, which it did, it broke canon and distorted the truth for its viewers. This creates conflict between those defending faith-based films and those who teach from the canon in real life. And it doesn’t end there.

Back in the 1960’s a group of historical revisionists decided to adjust the thinking of the church through the media. They created a story that Jesus’ hands weren’t actually pierced when he was put on the cross because the Greek word for hand also included the wrist. They also stated that Jesus’ hands would’ve torn open due to his weight, and therefore, he was actually pierced in his wrists when they crucified him.

This notion broke canon, but evangelists liked the “new revelation” and spread the word throughout the world. Today, most pastors who weren’t around for the origin of this story teach that Jesus was pierced in his forearms, albeit close to the wrist. They shifted to the forearm because the wrist is just a series of bones that couldn’t be pierced, and the canon said not a bone in his body was broken, which piercing his wrist would have done. These further adjustments took congregations even farther away from the purity of the canon.

By the way, a couple years ago I interviewed a nurse who worked for an orthopedic hand surgeon. She said that Jesus could easily have been pierced in his hands because of the vast network of ligaments that crisscross like a web inside of the hand, which is also strong enough to hold the body’s weight without tearing.

This Easter a new faith-based film that has broken canon will be released by the title of The Shack. The most obvious departure from canon is that God the Father shows up as God the Mother. Canon states that God wanted to be called the Heavenly Father, but historical revisionists are pushing for God being able to show himself as anything he wants, which meets the canon of the Hindus and Universalists, not the Christians.

What I don’t understand is how Christians, whose lives depend on its writings, are so willing to break canon in the name of creative license, but Star Trek will do everything in its power to maintain their sacred canon. Even J. J. Abrams during the filming of Star Trek 2009 talked about the difficulty in maintaining canon, but how it was well rewarded by the audience’s appreciation.

So, why do faith-based films not follow canon? I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter, especially since Star Trek is make believe (suggesting that canon doesn’t matter) and Christianity is reality (suggesting canon is critical).

Copyright © 2017 by CJ Powers